[T3G]

this globe and mail article argues that we need more waterfront attractions. That ontario place redevelopment is a good idea, but we need something more. something like sydneys opera house. a big tourist destination. Alternatively a museum could be an idea, but id be skeptical

I disagree. I think the problem with Toronto's waterfront is that a lot of is not accessible in a big way.

Apart from the central portion of it, from George Brown to Billy Bishop, and with the odd exception like The Beaches, Humber Bay Shores and the Scarborough Bluffs, much of the waterfront is situated in quiet, residential neighbourhood. The parks are small, unknown, void of life, like they're d facto private parks for the rich who can afford to live right by the water. For all intents and purposes, Scarborough and Etobicoke may as well be landlocked.

Contrast this with New York: there are few waterfront attractions per se, but the water surrounding Manhattan feels more integrated with the city. There is no part of Manhattan where I feel the waterfront is in a different part of the world, that getting there is a challenge or an imposition, as I do, for example, at Long Branch, or Kingston and Birchmount. Even FDR Drive doesn't seem as insurmountable of an obstacle.

I would've much preferred that Ontario Place would've been made into a big city park, modelled after, say, Central Park. The parking lots in the area I would've preferred to see placed underground, replaced by mid-scale walkable mixed use neighbourhoods.

I am not impressed by the ideas for Ontario Place. They reek of the utter lack of imagination, and contempt for every day little people, that are so associated with neoliberals.

 

[picard102]

You guys are surprisingly bad at this. Far too bad to actually be paid by Therme, is the good news..

More personal barbs to deflect from having a point? Even when I don't reply to your nonsense, you can't help yourself.

Exactly. As before. Some of us demand better and that's really what this all comes down to, over and over again.

To quote UtakataNoAnnex, "It is what it is, so suck it up?"

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

EDITED cuz the mod is right.

I'll just say that I made 5 paragraphs of substantive points about Ontario Place and if all you're going to do is cherry pick 2 sentences and claim I'm deflecting and don't actually have a point, you're not offering very much or being very persuasive.

There's a couple of people swimming upstream here and, hey, it's a forum for debate. But it's not very constructive at this point, IMHO.

C'est ca.

 

[PinkLucy]

Enough with the personal back and forth, let’s just discuss Ontario Place and not each other.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Premium self-indulgence" isn't my term and I don't really care but I think the clear implication is that many of us (pretty much everyone except the 3 of you who keep liking each other's posts, really) don't buy that messaging at all

To clarify, it’s my way of describing a premium luxury service. I’m sure there are better ways of describing it, I just went with that for a nuance of my of what I was trying to convey here. And for what that’s worth.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

This wont't budge Team It's Better Than Nothing but this John Lorinc article does a good job laying out the many concerns with the Ontario Place deal and how it came about (and why it should be investigated).

LORINC: The Auditor General needs to investigate Ontario Place, now - Spacing Toronto

Given this week’s stunning news — that the RCMP has launched a criminal investigation of the Greenbelt land deals and that Ontario’s auditor-general (AG) has initiated a probe of the Ford government’s use of Ministerial Zoning Orders to expand urban boundaries — there can no longer be any...

spacing.ca

 

[generalcanada]

People know my opinions about this project but theese arguments have never been seen before Somtimes spacing has good articles, sometimes they go wayyy off the deep end trying to create arguments

Auditors-general are tasked with ensuring value for money, and if there was ever a public sector boondoggle that demanded this particular form of scrutiny, the Tories’ sweetheart deal with Therme is it.

People also need to remember that Infrastructure Ontario was the one deciding the bidders. To claim that Ontario Place doesnt have Value for money is also claiming that any of the other p3 projects in bidding they oversee also dont have value for money. that includes the ontario line

The subsequent procurement process, which produced the Therme proposal, lacked a fairness commissioner

This is litterally just not true
source: https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1000630/province-announces-ontario-place-redevelopment

This fair, transparent and open process was designed and facilitated by Infrastructure Ontario and its advisors (KPMG and Colliers) to provide flexibility for interested parties to propose unique, yet financially viable and sustainable, development concepts.

All of the other p3 projects hide maintenance costs. all of the other p3 projects never release rent/lease info.
This is common, just because its the case here doesnt mean theres anything fishy going on.

yea the parking garage again, but that was decided when engineers told them they dont have enough parking. nothing fishy
and the tree cutting. I, and probably therme/the government stand by that report saying the soil is contaminated and the entire island is in need of repair.

Therme’s decision to spend money on a hearts-and-minds campaign strongly echoes a similar tactic used by Sidewalk Labs (and the Ford family’s wedding guests). Both entities are/were being advised by Strategy Corp., which has strong ties to the Tory government.

PR is now quid pro quo? OK

yea we all hate insiders but it's almost a fact of life. Just because they privately found a job there where the company knew them doesn't mean anything

Oh love the callout to ellisdon as if they aren't like the biggest construction company in canada.

And lastly, again, the tree felling ahs nothing to do with the development application

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

People know my opinions about this project but theese arguments have never been seen before

You're speaking for yourself here. It's a 'well-argued article but the individual pieces are not new to many of us.

People also need to remember that Infrastructure Ontario was the one deciding the bidders.

The larger point, which I think is clearly articulated, is that given the investigations of other deals the Province has made, there is ample reason to consider it unlikely this one proceeded without interference. Maybe it did. But we should look at it, is what he's saying.

This is litterally just not true
source: https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1000630/province-announces-ontario-place-redevelopment

A Fairness Commissioner is a specific role. Your source helpfully proves this is, in fact, entirely true as KPMG et al oversaw without the FCO being brought in.

All of the other p3 projects hide maintenance costs. all of the other p3 projects never release rent/lease info.
This is common, just because its the case here doesnt mean theres anything fishy going on.

True. But as above, the key here is that stuff like the Greenbelt has poisoned the well of trust in whether something fishy is going on with a deal that already has some question marks.

Yea the parking garage again, but that was decided when engineers told them they dont have enough parking. nothing fishy

See above again and the point is that if they don't have enough parking, it should have been a demerit for the RFP before it was selected , not a reason for the Province to helpfully provide $500m of their own after the fact.

PR is now quid pro quo? OK

Not that they're doing PR but who and how. See also, Mark Saunders getting paid $200k to do nothing. Individually or might warrant an eye roll but when you put it all together, it warrants investigation, is the point.

Plus, if they do it and it finds nothing, you'll be able to scold us all for our cynicism much more easily.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

This wont't budge Team It's Better Than Nothing but this John Lorinc article does a good job laying out the many concerns with the Ontario Place deal and how it came about (and why it should be investigated).

LORINC: The Auditor General needs to investigate Ontario Place, now - Spacing Toronto

Given this week’s stunning news — that the RCMP has launched a criminal investigation of the Greenbelt land deals and that Ontario’s auditor-general (AG) has initiated a probe of the Ford government’s use of Ministerial Zoning Orders to expand urban boundaries — there can no longer be any...

spacing.ca

In the end, nothing is most likely better than what we're getting here...

...that said and more importantly, it's nether really been about how you and I feel about this proposal. Rather the issue of accountability...so even if we think this is a great idea, the evidence suggest this is all done on the sly, only really benefiting those who have biggest stakes in this. And not really the public nor the consumers of this venture. That is, it's a dumpster fire of a deal that this sitting government is doing everything it can in not putting it out. /bleh

 

[DSC]

Member Motion at Council today: The City is starting to fight back!

MM11.39 - Protecting the Process for Tree Removal at Ontario Place - by Deputy Mayor Ausma Malik, seconded by Councillor Dianne Saxe​

Motion without Notice
Consideration Type: ACTION
Ward: 10 - Spadina - Fort York
Attention
* This Motion has been deemed urgent by the Chair.
* This Motion is not subject to a vote to waive referral. This Motion has been added to the agenda and is before Council for debate.

Recommendations​

Deputy Mayor Ausma Malik, seconded by Councillor Dianne Saxe, recommends that:

1. City Council affirm the importance of safeguarding existing trees on City-owned land as much as possible, and that the City's tree by laws are applicable and permits will be required for any tree removals or injuries.

2. City Council direct the Acting General Manager, Parks Forestry & Recreation and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, in consultation with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, the Director, Waterfront Secretariat, and the City Solicitor, as necessary, to report to the next meeting of City Council regarding requirements applicable to the removal of trees within Ontario Place, in particular as it relates to Heritage Impact Assessments and Environmental Assessments for Ontario Place, in advance of City Council making a decision in respect of development applications filed by Infrastructure Ontario (Application No.: 22 233864 STE 10 OZ).

3. City Council direct the City Solicitor to report to the next meeting of City Council regarding the City’s legal options in light of the report from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, as directed by Recommendation 2.

4. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to take steps to protect the City’s interests as the City Solicitor considers appropriate based on what is legally permissible, in consultation with the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division and the Acting General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, in the event that any tree removal occurs on any City-owned lands or other areas of concern within Ontario Place and then report to the next meeting of City Council with respect to any actions taken.

 

[Northern Light]

Member Motion at Council today: The City is starting to fight back!

MM11.39 - Protecting the Process for Tree Removal at Ontario Place - by Deputy Mayor Ausma Malik, seconded by Councillor Dianne Saxe​

Motion without Notice
Consideration Type: ACTION
Ward: 10 - Spadina - Fort York
Attention
* This Motion has been deemed urgent by the Chair.
* This Motion is not subject to a vote to waive referral. This Motion has been added to the agenda and is before Council for debate.

Recommendations​

Deputy Mayor Ausma Malik, seconded by Councillor Dianne Saxe, recommends that:

1. City Council affirm the importance of safeguarding existing trees on City-owned land as much as possible, and that the City's tree by laws are applicable and permits will be required for any tree removals or injuries.

2. City Council direct the Acting General Manager, Parks Forestry & Recreation and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, in consultation with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, the Director, Waterfront Secretariat, and the City Solicitor, as necessary, to report to the next meeting of City Council regarding requirements applicable to the removal of trees within Ontario Place, in particular as it relates to Heritage Impact Assessments and Environmental Assessments for Ontario Place, in advance of City Council making a decision in respect of development applications filed by Infrastructure Ontario (Application No.: 22 233864 STE 10 OZ).

3. City Council direct the City Solicitor to report to the next meeting of City Council regarding the City’s legal options in light of the report from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, as directed by Recommendation 2.

4. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to take steps to protect the City’s interests as the City Solicitor considers appropriate based on what is legally permissible, in consultation with the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division and the Acting General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation, in the event that any tree removal occurs on any City-owned lands or other areas of concern within Ontario Place and then report to the next meeting of City Council with respect to any actions taken.

So far as I can discern, the City's only legal standing here is in regards to the City owned lands, which the province has not yet moved to expropriate.

This is only a small portion of the area the province has currently awarded cutting for......

It should be noted, the contract the province just awarded for Tree Cutting at OP does not cover the West Island/Therme area, but only covers the Mainland and the East Island.

The province has indicated to the City that will not be applying for permits for tree injury or removal as per its authorities.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

It may be that it's some silly thing like Tree Removal permits that works. Like the old getting Capone on tax evasion. Whatever works.

 

[picard102]

Didn't the city try this with Osgood Hall's trees?

 

[generalcanada]

You're speaking for yourself here. It's a 'well-argued article but the individual pieces are not new to many of us.


The larger point, which I think is clearly articulated, is that given the investigations of other deals the Province has made, there is ample reason to consider it unlikely this one proceeded without interference. Maybe it did. But we should look at it, is what he's saying.

A Fairness Commissioner is a specific role. Your source helpfully proves this is, in fact, entirely true as KPMG et al oversaw without the FCO being brought in.



True. But as above, the key here is that stuff like the Greenbelt has poisoned the well of trust in whether something fishy is going on with a deal that already has some question marks.

See above again and the point is that if they don't have enough parking, it should have been a demerit for the RFP before it was selected , not a reason for the Province to helpfully provide $500m of their own after the fact.


Not that they're doing PR but who and how. See also, Mark Saunders getting paid $200k to do nothing. Individually or might warrant an eye roll but when you put it all together, it warrants investigation, is the point.

Plus, if they do it and it finds nothing, you'll be able to scold us all for our cynicism much more easily.

I think it's really important to remember that the greenbelt scandal wasnt one of corruption but incompetence. The minister himself was basically accused of Dereliction of duty. The staffer panicked when given a task way above what he would have been capable of.

Im not downplaying how bad the greenbelt scandal is. But theres a massive difference between interfering in a fair bidding process and what actually happened in the greenbelt decision. Are people skeptical of Ford now? Sure, but can you say the same for IO?

My point is that OP being done by IO. Which means their hands are 100% clean. This project included

Remember the greenbelt wasnt done in a bidding process. There is no reason to assume that IO is corrupt

A Fairness Commissioner is a specific role. Your source helpfully proves this is, in fact, entirely true as KPMG et al oversaw without the FCO being brought in.

Your debating semantics

See above again and the point is that if they don't have enough parking, it should have been a demerit for the RFP before it was selected , not a reason for the Province to helpfully provide $500m of their own after the fact.

But they didnt know until a development application was sent in. Here is what I will say could have been a good plan. Require all proposal teams to create a full dev plan ready to send to the city before a winner is decided.
That would have been a good idea. would have saved so much fuss. but the past is the past. Still doubt it would have changed anything

Plus, if they do it and it finds nothing, you'll be able to scold us all for our cynicism much more easily.

Oh trust me Id be laughing all day going down the waterslides

 

[generalcanada]

Didn't the city try this with Osgood Hall's trees?

I believe the people who sued metrolinx tried to get at the "heritage act".

IIRC their arguments were that neighboring properties have right to refuse any changes to buildings beside them.
I could be wrong